Liberal arts poor venture? Not so fast

A college education is expensive, no matter whether a student attends a two-year institution or a private college. So naturally, getting the most value from an education dollar is important.

That premise cuts to the heart of a debate over the purpose of college education: Is it to educate for a job, or is it to educate for the sake of knowledge? It's technical training vs. the liberal arts.

Ivy Tech President Tom Snyder wrote in the Huffington Post recently that a liberal arts education was a "poor investment" because today's employers demand students well-versed in STEM - science, technology engineering and math. He's right about that, but he's wrong about the liberal arts.

STEM students will be better employees (if not the higher paid supervisors, managers and entrepreneurs) if they have a liberal arts background to go with their STEM degree.

Here's why: A student who earns a degree in a technical field might land a good job, but will he or she have the critical thinking and communication skills to become a leader in their field? What about a leader in society?

Few entry-level jobs in any field require four years of specialized training. The "payoff" of a liberal arts education is producing a student who can logically reason, form compelling arguments and are exposed to a broad range of knowledge. They can think critically, read interpretatively and communicate their thoughts to others.

In its coarsest form, all the rest can be Googled.

What's lost in Snyder's blog is the fact employers want technical skills as well as critical thinking skills enhanced by liberal arts. If given the choice between a job applicant with a technical skill versus one with broad-based knowledge plus the specifics of a particular field, well, you choose.

While it's true few philosophy majors will ever earn a living as philosophers, they are the people who create, enter medical and law schools, teach, and have careers in a host of other fields. They think, thus they work.

There is a vital place for Ivy Tech and other two-year institutions in the education spectrum. If a student wants a fast-track path to necessary job skills, go to these schools. They provide a cost-effective means to obtaining marketable skills.

Ironically, some students attend to get the so-called "fluff" courses (history, literature, and general studies) out of the way before attending a four-year school. Even liberal arts has a place inside the halls of a two-year school.

Furthermore, it's highly unlikely a student will work in the same job, or even same field, for their entire career. Old skill sets will be discarded and new ones acquired. Learning is a lifelong process, thus a person with a two-year degree will likely return to the classroom.

Finally, the beauty of our education system is that it caters to many tastes and desires. Let's face it, some people are not "college material," yet they still need jobs. There are places to get the skills necessary to gain employment, and there are places for students who want more.

Harvard professor James Engell in an essay offered this: "Students should be encouraged to follow their passions and interests, not what they guess (or what others tell them) will lead to a supposedly more marketable set of skills. ... A healthy system of higher education offers many rewards: scientific discoveries, eventual and even unforeseen applications, thoughtful political leadership, intelligent public discourse, cultural vitality, and an educated workforce. Higher learning serves several goals in coordination, goals that are mutually reinforcing."

Liberal arts a poor investment? Hardly.

- The Star Press, Muncie, Ind.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Liberal arts poor venture? Not so fast

A college education is expensive, no matter whether a student attends a two-year institution or a private college. So naturally, getting the most value from an education dollar is important.